BRETT DOYLE v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER DENYING MANDAMUS PETITION

This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to correct an illegal sentence and the court of appeals’ order affirming the denial in docket no. 85536.

Petitioner pleaded guilty in 2015 to sexual assault of a child and lewdness with a child under the age of 14 years and was sentenced to serve consecutive prison terms totaling 45 years to life in the aggregate. In his petition, petitioner claims that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his case and the authority to sentence him because the Nevada Revised Statutes have no connection to the Statutes of Nevada. This court and the court of appeals previously considered and rejected this claim. See Doyle v. State, No. 89862, 2025 WL 261568 (Nev. Jan. 21, 2025) (Order Denying Mandamus Petition); Doyle v. State, No. 85536, 2023 WL 2720871 (Nev. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2023) (Order of Affirmance).

Having considered the petition and attached documentation, we are not convinced that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Pan. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing that such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). As petitioner has failed to demonstrate that our intervention by extraordinary writ is warranted, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Herndon, C.J.

Parraguirre, J.

Stiglich, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Petitioner has filed a motion for leave to exceed the page limit. Cause appearing, the motion is granted. NRAP 21(d); NRAP 32(a)(7)(D). Also, we have considered petitioner's “Motion Requesting Submission of Writ of Mandamus” and conclude that no relief is warranted.